Understanding Indian Insurgencies

[Ray]

This spreading of “awareness”, “promotion”, and “advocacy” by foreign funded NGOs is what fuels the fire and leads to insurgencies and Maoism.

Hitler, also spread “awareness”, “promotion”, and “advocacy” amongst the German people and created the juggernaut that shook the world and brought misery. He did a great job if one was a Nazi or a sympathiser, but was a Devil Incarnate is one faced the brunt of his spreading of “awareness”, “promotion”, and “advocacy” amongst the then impoverished, humiliated and deprived German people.

It all depends on how one perceives the different sides of the same coin!

Manmohan Singh told Mr Bush - India loves you, Mr Bush. Indeed, many did and still do.

But ask the Indian Muslims. Do they love Mr Bush?

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Ray

This is from the Wall Street Journal, India.

I wonder if American feel that the Wall Street Journal would qualify as chaotic or shoddy journalism.

There's nothing in that article to suggest funding by the US Government. As I said, it's entirely possible that US NGOs are helping to fund antinuclear, environmental, and other movements in India. I'd be surprised if they weren't. That doen't mean the US Government is involved in any way. Most of these NGOs don't get government funding, and many have a quite adversarial relationship with the US government. The US Government can't stop them from sending money, unless they send it to someone designated as a terrorist organization.

Again, if you're looking at NGOs there has to be some distinction among Government-funded or approved foreign NGOs, foreign NGOs not funded by government, and local NGOs receiving assistance from foreign counterparts.

Originally Posted by Ray

The reason why US is not comfortable over the nuclear plant is that it is Russian backed, while it was the US (Mr Bush actually) which got India clearance for international nuclear fuel supply and, it was understood that India would buy US nuclear plant. The Liability factor on the supplier is what is the hurdle with the US nuclear plants. India is very careful on that after the Union Carbide case which caused the Bhopal Gas Tragedy.

How does supplier liability work out in the case of a Russian-built nuclear power plant? The Russian nuclear industry isn't noted for having a perfect safety record. In any event the idea that the US Government is funding anti-nuclear protests in India because a US company didn't get the contract seems pretty far out on the conspiracy-theory scale. What are the specific NGOs involved? Is there any evidence that they receive US Government funding?

Originally Posted by Ray

2. Amnesty International is not a Mary Poppins inspite of the hype.

I endorse the American opinion of this organisation and add it is also pro terrorist. Human rights is one thing and bending backward to castigate the Govt alone and not the terrorists is another.

I certainly wouldn't say they are "a Mary Poppins", but they aren't tools of the US Government either; they've shown that enough times. Over the years they've come in for quite similar criticism from the US Government

Originally Posted by Ray

3. Funding organisations that superstitiously espouse the Maoist and terrorist cause is indeed a part of a destabilisation at work.

Possibly so... but who's being funded, and who's doing the funding? The accusations published all seem awfully generic, with few organizations actually mentioned, and funding for, say, environmental, anti-nuclear, or similar groups isn't the same thing as funding Maoist rebels.

Governments always prefer to blame issues of insurgency and popular resistance movements of foreign subversion: that relieves them of responsibility for the consequences of their own governance decision. That's often a bit of an excuse, though. Foreign support may aggravate an insurgency, but it's not going to create one, not without a pretty high level of disaffection already in place.

[Ray]

There's nothing in that article to suggest funding by the US Government. As I said, it's entirely possible that US NGOs are helping to fund antinuclear, environmental, and other movements in India. I'd be surprised if they weren't. That doen't mean the US Government is involved in any way. Most of these NGOs don't get government funding, and many have a quite adversarial relationship with the US government. The US Government can't stop them from sending money, unless they send it to someone designated as a terrorist organization.

Again, if you're looking at NGOs there has to be some distinction among Government-funded or approved foreign NGOs, foreign NGOs not funded by government, and local NGOs receiving assistance from foreign counterparts.

It would be an understatement to believe that the foreign funding was totally altruistic.


If you had read through the links, you would have realised the British anger at funding India, which does not require British aid. DFID is Govt funded and it supports the NGOs in India.


Here is an article from the UK

Dodgy development: DFID in India : Introduction: DFID in India

http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=3655

Let us look at a similar situation from history.

Would anyone believe that colonialism was anyway related to evangelism of the Missionaries who can to ‘civilise’ the ‘savages’?


I am reminded of Desmond Tutu’s phrase on the missionaries.

When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said "Let us pray." We closed our eyes. When we opened them, we had the Bible and they had the land.

And actually, while the missionaries were not funded by the Govt, but they assisted their Govt to change the minds of the people the missionaries ‘saved’.


Christianity and colonialism are associated because Catholicism and Protestantism were the religions of the European colonial powers and in many ways are taken as the “religious arm" of those powers.


I am not saying so but Edward Andrews has opined that Christian missionaries were initially portrayed as "visible saints, exemplars of ideal piety in a sea of persistent savagery". However, by the time the colonial era drew to a close in the last half of the twentieth century, missionaries became viewed as "ideological shock troops for colonial invasion whose zealotry blinded them", colonialism's "agent, scribe and moral alibi."


Some more reference material are:

1. ^ Melvin E. Page, Penny M. Sonnenburg (2003). Colonialism: an international, social, cultural, and political encyclopedia, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 496. "Of all religions, Christianity has been most associated with colonialism because several of its forms (Catholicism and Protestantism) were the religions of the European powers engaged in colonial enterprise on a global scale."

2. ^ Bevans, Steven. "Christian Complicity in Colonialism/ Globalism". Retrieved 2010-11-17. "The modern missionary era was in many ways the ‘religious arm’ of colonialism, whether Portuguese and Spanish colonialism in the sixteenth Century, or British, French, German, Belgian or American colonialism in the nineteenth. This was not all bad — oftentimes missionaries were heroic defenders of the rights of indigenous peoples"

3. ^ Andrews, Edward (2010). "Christian Missions and Colonial Empires Reconsidered: A Black Evangelist in West Africa, 1766–1816". Journal of Church & State 51 (4): 663–691.doi:10.1093/jcs/csp090. "Historians have traditionally looked at Christian missionaries in one of two ways. The first church historians to catalogue missionary history provided hagiographic descriptions of their trials, successes, and sometimes even martyrdom. Missionaries were thus visible saints, exemplars of ideal piety in a sea of persistent savagery. However, by the middle of the twentieth century, an era marked by civil rights movements, anti-colonialism, and growing secularization, missionaries were viewed quite differently. Instead of godly martyrs, historians now described missionaries as arrogant and rapacious imperialists. Christianity became not a saving grace but a monolithic and aggressive force that missionaries imposed upon defiant natives. Indeed, missionaries were now understood as important agents in the ever-expanding nation-state, or "ideological shock troops for colonial invasion whose zealotry blinded them."

4. ^ Comaroff, Jean; Comaroff, John (2010) [1997]. "Africa Observed: Discourses of the Imperial Imagination". In Grinker, Roy R.; Lubkemann, Stephen C.; Steiner, Christopher B.. Perspectives on Africa: A Reader in Culture, History and Representation (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. p. 32


Therefore, the correlation between Missionaries and Foreign funded NGO is quite similar. They are basically the ‘ideological shock troops in guise of moral, bleeding heart Pollyannas’.


I think this is a subject that can be debated on a separate thread.

How does supplier liability work out in the case of a Russian-built nuclear power plant? The Russian nuclear industry isn't noted for having a perfect safety record. In any event the idea that the US Government is funding anti-nuclear protests in India because a US company didn't get the contract seems pretty far out on the conspiracy-theory scale. What are the specific NGOs involved? Is there any evidence that they receive US Government funding?

I think the term, “Conspiracy Theory” has been overused and is but a cliché and cover all for anything that does not suits one’s own perceptions.


One the Russian nuclear project, Wiki sums up the issue.


An Inter-Governmental Agreement on the project was signed on November 20, 1988 by then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, for the construction of two reactors. The project remained in limbo for a decade due to the political and economic upheaval in Russia after the post-1991 Soviet breakup. There were also objections from the United States, on the grounds that the agreement does not meet the 1992 terms of the Nuclear Suppliers Group(NSG).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudanku..._Power_Project


While there were protests in India, where the US oriented PM of India was equally livid about the protests being foreign funded, it also found widespread sympathy in western nations.

Protest in Britain over Kudankulam nuclear plant
They claimed support from five British MPs and one British Member of the European Parliament who have signed a letter addressed to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh which will be handed over to the High Commission……..

They claimed the construction violated the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safety guidelines as Kudankulam is in a tsunami and earthquake prone region which has also experienced small volcanic eruptions and is affected by water shortages.
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/protest-i...42-62-128.html

It sure makes one wonder as to what prompts far away western nations to be livid about India’s development plans when they are not funding the same? Should they not be more concerned about themselves acquiring nuclear submarines and adding to their nuclear stockpile? I am sure those are more dangerous for proliferation in case of accidents inside their country or while traversing across the oceans than a nuclear power plant!


One wonders as to why there was no western outcry that Japan should close down all its nuclear power plants since it is an earthquake and tsunami prone nation and disasters like the last nuclear plant accident due to the tsunami could affect the world.

Odd, to say the least.


On the issue of whether or not the NGOs or those providing the funds have the support of foreign Govts, would any organisation claim that they are being funded to pursue an agenda that has covert aims tweaked in its moralist and altruist façade? I would be very surprised if a person of the US Embassy should walk up and shout from the rooftop stating ‘Hey, I am a CIA agent!’

I am sure you have heard of the Raymond Davis case in Pakistan. He was a retired Special Forces soldier, who carried out scouting and other reconnaissance missions as a security officer for the Central Intelligence Agency. The US Govt would not go to the extent that it did, if he was not a CIA agent. And what was his official designation?

I certainly wouldn't say they are "a Mary Poppins", but they aren't tools of the US Government either; they've shown that enough times. Over the years they've come in for quite similar criticism from the US Government

Amnesty International is an over rated organisation with its own agenda.


They trot out their ‘findings’ which are one sided, perfectly satisfied that they need not give the facts of the terrorist/ Maoist atrocities!


Amnesty International, medecins sans frontiers, the Peace Corps et al, all very noble organisation have been accused to pursuing foreign agenda or spying. To believe that one would not use such organisations would be disingenuous.


Soft power is a concept developed by Joseph Nye to describe the ability to attract and co-opt rather than coerce and rather than using force or money as a means of persuasion (to pursue the agenda).

[Ray]

Possibly so... but who's being funded, and who's doing the funding? The accusations published all seem awfully generic, with few organizations actually mentioned, and funding for, say, environmental, anti-nuclear, or similar groups isn't the same thing as funding Maoist rebels.

Governments always prefer to blame issues of insurgency and popular resistance movements of foreign subversion: that relieves them of responsibility for the consequences of their own governance decision. That's often a bit of an excuse, though. Foreign support may aggravate an insurgency, but it's not going to create one, not without a pretty high level of disaffection already in place.

It is easy for one to comment that the Govt blames others for their ills.


Indeed the Govts are responsible for neglect that leads to such insurgencies, but then you may like to think it over as to what would be the cost of organising an insurgency.


Look at organising an insurgency in terms of patching up the organisation, organising the publicity, weaning over sympathisers, having overt front men and organisation espousing their cause, training and equipping the underground soldiers for their cause, organising and funding the logistics of such Army and also other front organisations and so on and so forth.


It requires big time Money. Without help from ‘friends’, such an endeavour is a non starter.


One does not require a high level of dissatisfaction to start a revolution.


Dissatisfaction is there in all societies. It merely requires good and sustained spin to brainwash people into action and then it becomes self sustaining.

[Ray]

Minute by the Hon'ble T. B. Macaulay, dated the 2nd February 1835.

[5] The argument which I have been considering affects only the form of proceeding. But the admirers of the oriental system of education have used another argument, which, if we admit it to be valid, is decisive against all change. They conceive that the public faith is pledged to the present system, and that to alter the appropriation of any of the funds which have hitherto been spent in encouraging the study of Arabic and Sanscrit would be downright spoliation. It is not easy to understand by what process of reasoning they can have arrived at this conclusion. The grants which are made from the public purse for the encouragement of literature differ in no respect from the grants which are made from the same purse for other objects of real or supposed utility. We found a sanitarium on a spot which we suppose to be healthy. Do we thereby pledge ourselves to keep a sanitarium there if the result should not answer our expectations? We commence the erection of a pier. Is it a violation of the public faith to stop the works, if we afterwards see reason to believe that the building will be useless? The rights of property are undoubtedly sacred. But nothing endangers those rights so much as the practice, now unhappily too common, of attributing them to things to which they do not belong. Those who would impart to abuses the sanctity of property are in truth imparting to the institution of property the unpopularity and the fragility of abuses. If the Government has given to any person a formal assurance-- nay, if the Government has excited in any person's mind a reasonable expectation-- that he shall receive a certain income as a teacher or a learner of Sanscrit or Arabic, I would respect that person's pecuniary interests. I would rather err on the side of liberality to individuals than suffer the public faith to be called in question. But to talk of a Government pledging itself to teach certain languages and certain sciences, though those languages may become useless, though those sciences may be exploded, seems to me quite unmeaning. There is not a single word in any public instrument from which it can be inferred that the Indian Government ever intended to give any pledge on this subject, or ever considered the destination of these funds as unalterably fixed. But, had it been otherwise, I should have denied the competence of our predecessors to bind us by any pledge on such a subject. Suppose that a Government had in the last century enacted in the most solemn manner that all its subjects should, to the end of time, be inoculated for the small-pox, would that Government be bound to persist in the practice after Jenner's discovery? These promises of which nobody claims the performance, and from which nobody can grant a release, these vested rights which vest in nobody, this property without proprietors, this robbery which makes nobody poorer, may be comprehended by persons of higher faculties than mine. I consider this plea merely as a set form of words, regularly used both in England and in India, in defence of every abuse for which no other plea can be set up.

[12] How then stands the case? We have to educate a people who cannot at present be educated by means of their mother-tongue. We must teach them some foreign language. The claims of our own language it is hardly necessary to recapitulate. It stands pre-eminent even among the languages of the West. It abounds with works of imagination not inferior to the noblest which Greece has bequeathed to us, --with models of every species of eloquence, --with historical composition, which, considered merely as narratives, have seldom been surpassed, and which, considered as vehicles of ethical and political instruction, have never been equaled-- with just and lively representations of human life and human nature, --with the most profound speculations on metaphysics, morals, government, jurisprudence, trade, --with full and correct information respecting every experimental science which tends to preserve the health, to increase the comfort, or to expand the intellect of man. Whoever knows that language has ready access to all the vast intellectual wealth which all the wisest nations of the earth have created and hoarded in the course of ninety generations. It may safely be said that the literature now extant in that language is of greater value than all the literature which three hundred years ago was extant in all the languages of the world together. Nor is this all. In India, English is the language spoken by the ruling class. It is spoken by the higher class of natives at the seats of Government. It is likely to become the language of commerce throughout the seas of the East. It is the language of two great European communities which are rising, the one in the south of Africa, the other in Australia, --communities which are every year becoming more important and more closely connected with our Indian empire. Whether we look at the intrinsic value of our literature, or at the particular situation of this country, we shall see the strongest reason to think that, of all foreign tongues, the English tongue is that which would be the most useful to our native subjects.

[34] In one point I fully agree with the gentlemen to whose general views I am opposed. I feel with them that it is impossible for us, with our limited means, to attempt to educate the body of the people. We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, --a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population.

[35] I would strictly respect all existing interests. I would deal even generously with all individuals who have had fair reason to expect a pecuniary provision. But I would strike at the root of the bad system which has hitherto been fostered by us. I would at once stop the printing of Arabic and Sanscrit books. I would abolish the Mudrassa and the Sanscrit College at Calcutta. Benares is the great seat of Brahminical learning; Delhi of Arabic learning. If we retain the Sanscrit College at Bonares and the Mahometan College at Delhi we do enough and much more than enough in my opinion, for the Eastern languages. If the Benares and Delhi Colleges should be retained, I would at least recommend that no stipends shall be given to any students who may hereafter repair thither, but that the people shall be left to make their own choice between the rival systems of education without being bribed by us to learn what they have no desire to know. The funds which would thus be placed at our disposal would enable us to give larger encouragement to the Hindoo College at Calcutta, and establish in the principal cities throughout the Presidencies of Fort William and Agra schools in which the English language might be well and thoroughly taught.


*****************

So, changing the mindset to suit powers that be is an old custom - as old as when Time began!

And only the fools will abdicate their pristine position with moralism by not use all instruments available to ensure that they remain supreme!

The West may have become weaker owing to the unique circumstances, but they are no fools!

The West will use all instruments in the book to ensure best to form a class who are alike in thought, --a class of persons foreign in colour but Western in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.

The only problem the West has now is a matching competitor flushed with oil money. They are hard put in spreading their religious edicts and demanding the same with their economic clout in foreign lands. Some nations are succumbing and some are possible valiant as in Custer's Last Stand!

There is also another challenger with economic clout, which has a history of vast imperialistic adventures and gobbling up others and assimilating them and converting them to the imperialist ancestry! They are rising where the Sun rises after Japan. Flexing their muscles but still not there!

In these stands, one hopes Custer wins!

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Ray

It would be an understatement to believe that the foreign funding was totally altruistic.

Many of those involved in the antinuclear movements certainly perceive themselves as altruistic. In their own minds, they are saving the planet from the scourge of corporate capitalism. That's an agenda, but it isn't a government agenda or a unitary "Western" agenda.

Originally Posted by Ray

DFID is Govt funded and it supports the NGOs in India.

What do you mean by "the NGOs"? Which NGOs? There's a huge spectrum there, ranging from finance for small development projects with minimal or no political engagement to pure research to open advocacy and support for radical political causes. Some NGOs get government funding, others don't. Some openly loathe their governments and are intensely disliked by those governments. US NGOs involved in environmental and antinuclear campaigns have been monitored by the FBI, suspected and even accused of criminal and "eco-terrorist" activities. They do not get (and would not accept) government funding. They do raise funds, and they do support anti-nuclear campaigns all over the world. This is not some government or "Western" agenda, it's an agenda driven by a particular social philosophy that has attained a substantial following in much of the west.

Originally Posted by Ray

I think the term, “Conspiracy Theory” has been overused and is but a cliché and cover all for anything that does not suits one’s own perceptions.

It's an accurate description of what has become a pervasive trend in much of the world: widespread belief, often absolute and unquestioning, in propositions that are supported by neither logic nor evidence. It's a fascinating trend, often supported by the internet, which allows believers to construct a closed circle of superficially credible websites that tell them what they want to hear.

I have no doubt that US-based NGOs fund antinuclear groups in India and in many other places. The same happens in the indigenous rights movement, the environmental movement, the animal rights movement, the feminist movement, etc. We routinely get foreign activists blundering into local movements and trying to offer support. They're often annoying and genrally utterly naive, but they are in no way the cutting edge of some generically "Western" conspiracy to undercut the Philippines.

Originally Posted by Ray

The project remained in limbo for a decade due to the political and economic upheaval in Russia after the post-1991 Soviet breakup. There were also objections from the United States.

And from this you deduce that protests in India are funded by the US Government? Isn't it more likely that money is coming from groups like Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth. groups that the US Government wouldn't touch with a barge pole? That's what these groups do, they are quite open about it and quite proud of it.

That does not mean that these groups would directly fund Maoist rebels. Some of the individuals in them might want to, but the groups themselves would be very careful: direct support of violent movements would, if exposed, dramatically reduce their ability to raise funds.

The idea that the US Government is funding Maoist rebels is too absurd to countenance. If we heard that the CIA was funding a covert hit squad to whack Maoist sympathizers, that might be more believable.

Originally Posted by Ray

While there were protests in India, where the US oriented PM of India was equally livid about the protests being foreign funded, it also found widespread sympathy in western nations.

Protest do get widespread support in Western countries: that's why NGOs are able to raise the money they raise. This does not mean the support is institutional or that it comes from government. Many of the people involved are deeply suspicious of government and see it as an antagonist, along with the much loathed bogeyman of "the corporations".

Originally Posted by Ray

It sure makes one wonder as to what prompts far away western nations to be livid about India’s development plans when they are not funding the same? Should they not be more concerned about themselves acquiring nuclear submarines and adding to their nuclear stockpile?

Many of the same groups hold the same kind of protests against nuclear moves in their own countries. These groups act on their own, generally oppose their own governments, raise substantial cash from sympathizers, and are globally interconnected.

Originally Posted by Ray

One wonders as to why there was no western outcry that Japan should close down all its nuclear power plants since it is an earthquake and tsunami prone nation and disasters like the last nuclear plant accident due to the tsunami could affect the world.

There is an active antinuclear movement in Japan and it is actively engaged with similar movements around the world. I don't know if it receives funding: it's well established and able to raise funds domestically, I'd guess antinuclear groups in Japan are likely to be funding those in other countries, rather than receiving funds.

There's no generic "western outcry" against nuclear power in either Japan or India. The anti-nuclear movements oppose it, as they do everywhere. They are not "The west" in any generic sense, they are a group of people with a passionate, in some cases obsessive belief and the will to campaign for what they believe in.

Originally Posted by Ray

would any organisation claim that they are being funded to pursue an agenda that has covert aims tweaked in its moralist and altruist façade?

Is there any evidence of government support, or are you simply assuming that all foreign NGOs are government-funded?

Originally Posted by Ray

Amnesty International is an over rated organisation with its own agenda.

Of course it has its own agenda. That doesn't make it a tool of the US Government or of "the West". Where I live Amnesty International and similar groups are believed in military circles to be tools of international communism. Same complaints: they complain about government abuses but ignore those of the rebels, etc.

Originally Posted by Ray

It is easy for one to comment that the Govt blames others for their ills.

Governments do actually do that, all over the world, on a regular basis.

Originally Posted by Ray

Indeed the Govts are responsible for neglect that leads to such insurgencies, but then you may like to think it over as to what would be the cost of organising an insurgency.

Has anyone actually been accused of funding insurgency? Who, and to what extent? All I've seen is a claim that Indian NGOs diverted foreign funds to support protests. That's by no means incredible, but it's a far cry from funding insurgency.

I've also expressed curiosity about where Indian insurgent movements get their money, especially if it's true that the fighters are fighting for pecuniary benefit. Claims that the insurgency is directly funded by foreign NGOs or governments, though, have to be supported by some kind of evidence or at least some kind of logic. There's simply no reason for the US or any western government to fund Maoist insurgents in India.

Originally Posted by Ray

Look at organising an insurgency in terms of patching up the organisation, organising the publicity, weaning over sympathisers, having overt front men and organisation espousing their cause, training and equipping the underground soldiers for their cause, organising and funding the logistics of such Army and also other front organisations and so on and so forth.

Self-sustaining insurgencies have existed, especially in their early stages. Foreign funding or ideological support can advance an insurgency, but they can't create one, not unless the domestic conditions exist. Governments would be well advised to address the domestic conditions instead of blaming foreign subversion.

Originally Posted by Ray

One does not require a high level of dissatisfaction to start a revolution.

So people pick up guns and start shooting at vastly superior forces just because some foreigner wants them to? I don't think so, not without some pretty powerful motivation on a local, personal level.

Originally Posted by Ray

The West will use all instruments in the book to ensure best to form a class who are alike in thought, --a class of persons foreign in colour but Western in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.

What you're not recognizing is that "Western" encompasses huge variety. There's the "West" of the tea party and the west of the Occupy movements, the west of Exxon and the west of Greenpeace, the west of the IMF and of the anti-globalization protestors and all stripes in between. Governments juggle and dance to try to gain support and deflect opposition from as many parties as possible. Different factions compete aggressively for followers, all over the world, and link with the like-minded all over the world to advance their own agendas.

It's impossible to speak of a unitary "Western" agenda because no such thing exists.

[Ray]

What is the West?

[video] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZJHZ...layer_embedded [/video]

[video] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzQ_x...layer_embedded[/video]

Note the difference of understanding between the Oriental and Occidental viewpoints.

Many of those involved in the antinuclear movements certainly perceive themselves as altruistic. In their own minds, they are saving the planet from the scourge of corporate capitalism. That's an agenda, but it isn't a government agenda or a unitary "Western" agenda.

Indeed protests can be with an altruistic drive. However, not all such protests are very noble so to say and can be driven by foreign money.

It is claimed that USSR with the WPC used the undermentioned organisation to spread its of view of peace.
 Christian Peace Conference
 International Federation of Resistance Fighters
 International Institute for Peace
 International Organization of Democratic Lawyers
 International Organization of Journalists
 International Union of Students
 World Federation of Democratic Youth
 World Federation of Scientific Workers
 World Federation of Trade Unions
 Women's International Democratic Federation
 World Peace Esperanto Movement.
 International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War

Obviously, the way these organisations could be used was with funding and infrastructure and behind the ‘altruistic’ aims, they were basically being used to promote the Soviet agenda.

Whether it is true or not, one can always dispute it. Credibility is based on which side of the fence one is.

In 1951 the House Committee on Un-American Activities published The Communist "Peace" Offensive which detailed the activities of the WPC and of numerous affiliated organisations. It listed dozens of American organisations and hundreds of Americans who had been involved in peace meetings, conferences and petitions.

I take it that this House Committee on Un-American Activities is not a totally bogus Committee that is asinine in thought and deed!

Now another one. This will indicate how NGOs and others are not aware of being used

In 1982 the Heritage Foundation published Moscow and the Peace Offensive, which said that non-aligned peace organizations advocated similar policies on defence and disarmament to the Soviet Union. It argued that "pacifists and concerned Christians had been drawn into the Communist campaign largely unaware if its real sponsorship."

So, would it be wrong to believe that the NGOs know who are their actual backers?

Further, in 1985 Time magazine noted "the suspicions of some Western scientists that the nuclear winterscenario was promoted by Moscow to give antinuclear groups in the U.S. and Europe some fresh ammunition against America's arms buildup."

One could give examples at length, but suffice it to say, that foreign Govts do indulge in using NGOs to promote their agenda, and rarely will it admit that they are funding them or they are using the NGOs. Nor will the NGOs know who actually are their backers.

We are aware of the Western commentaries because it is widely read by the English speaking world, but then if one could read and access Soviet or even the Chinese commentaries, they would have told a different story.

In short, in this murky world of geopolitical one-upmanship, to stay relevant and capable of influence peddling, it becomes essential to use every instrument available to maintain supremacy.

I have given adequate examples to include the Raymond Davies case, but then it appears you have missed the same.

I have even said, it is only a silly Govt, which does not use these instruments (even if they are morally base) to ensure furthering its national agenda.

Like, the once hero of India, JL Nehru, who wanted to be the moral conscience keeper of the world, sold us all the way through from Kashmir to Tibet.

Good chap he was, but he failed to see reality.

Other nations like the US or UK, with their long history of governance and world domination, are hardly of the ilk of Nehru or even Gandhi!

What do you mean by "the NGOs"? Which NGOs? There's a huge spectrum there, ranging from finance for small development projects with minimal or no political engagement to pure research to open advocacy and support for radical political causes. Some NGOs get government funding, others don't. Some openly loathe their governments and are intensely disliked by those governments. US NGOs involved in environmental and antinuclear campaigns have been monitored by the FBI, suspected and even accused of criminal and "eco-terrorist" activities. They do not get (and would not accept) government funding. They do raise funds, and they do support anti-nuclear campaigns all over the world. This is not some government or "Western" agenda, it's an agenda driven by a particular social philosophy that has attained a substantial following in much of the west.

I precisely mean the DFID supports NGOs. Which NGOs? I am sure you could go on their website and find out for yourself, so that there is no doubt in your mind that may happen if I told you.

US NGOs maybe monitored by the FBI. But what of it? Are they independent of the Govt? Will they disobey the directions?

How come David Headley was a double agent? He worked for both US and ISI. He screwed the US.

The US government has sentenced a Kashmir-born American citizen Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai for having ties with the Pakistani intelligence community. Fai acknowledged that he relied on funding by way of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) to stay afloat. Fai admits that he hid information about the more than $3.5 million that was sent to his group from the ISI but says he saw no reason to disclose his ties.

That puts paid to the issue of active and hotfoot FBI monitoring. It was convenient to keep him off the radar, and when it became inconvenient with India warming up to the US, Fai was nabbed and booked!

So, give us a break with moralising, even though that is a Chinese trait to cover misdoings!

It merely proves that Govts, not only the US, but all, use every means available to ensure its national agenda is in place.

To deny it would mean that one is but Goody Two Shoes and pulling wool!

[Ray]

(contd)

It's an accurate description of what has become a pervasive trend in much of the world: widespread belief, often absolute and unquestioning, in propositions that are supported by neither logic nor evidence. It's a fascinating trend, often supported by the internet, which allows believers to construct a closed circle of superficially credible websites that tell them what they want to hear.

Actually, it is not the internet alone which could be the purveyor of motivated information. Govts, individuals, think tanks et all are guilty.

The unfortunate part is that one has to believe them or else one has to have the finances, organisation, authority and reach to penetrate every action taking place in the world to sift that wheat from the chaff. But then, even that would not be believed by the cynics and the motivate to sell an agenda!

I have no doubt that US-based NGOs fund antinuclear groups in India and in many other places. The same happens in the indigenous rights movement, the environmental movement, the animal rights movement, the feminist movement, etc. We routinely get foreign activists blundering into local movements and trying to offer support. They're often annoying and genrally utterly naive, but they are in no way the cutting edge of some generically "Western" conspiracy to undercut the Philippines.

The backing of NGOs around the world is not US centric.

It is a worldwide phenomenon pursued by all Govts.

I believe it is legal in the US to have lobbies to promote agendas of companies, political views and of foreign nations. These lobbies naturally do not have truth as a part of their agenda! And yet they can influence the US Congress and Govt and decide, if you will, the fate of many countries, like it or not!

Isn't that how life is?

And from this you deduce that protests in India are funded by the US Government? Isn't it more likely that money is coming from groups like Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth. groups that the US Government wouldn't touch with a barge pole? That's what these groups do, they are quite open about it and quite proud of it.

That does not mean that these groups would directly fund Maoist rebels. Some of the individuals in them might want to, but the groups themselves would be very careful: direct support of violent movements would, if exposed, dramatically reduce their ability to raise funds.

The idea that the US Government is funding Maoist rebels is too absurd to countenance. If we heard that the CIA was funding a covert hit squad to whack Maoist sympathizers, that might be more believable.

One would be surprised if the US’ agenda could be furthering radical Communist organisations as the Maoist.

I fail to see from where you deduce that.

Your interesting deduction does leave me baffled.

If you are meaning that the US is backing radical forces to topple State Govts that are not too favourable to the US' point of view, you maybe right.

But then, you alone would have such information. I confess, I don’t!

The nuclear plant is not in a Maoist infested area in case you are not aware.

Would you not drag in the US when none have mentioned it so. It may get you brownie points in this US forum, but then it is far from what I have stated

Protest do get widespread support in Western countries: that's why NGOs are able to raise the money they raise. This does not mean the support is institutional or that it comes from government. Many of the people involved are deeply suspicious of government and see it as an antagonist, along with the much loathed bogeyman of "the corporations".

You view is too simplistic.

I am not aware if you have worked in the govt or even in the Intelligence apparatus.

If you haven’t, then you are entitled to that view.

Unfortunately, that is not how the world rotates in the geopolitical environment.

Many of the same groups hold the same kind of protests against nuclear moves in their own countries. These groups act on their own, generally oppose their own governments, raise substantial cash from sympathizers, and are globally interconnected.

Globally interconnected is the keyword.

It is the business of any Govt to penetrate every organisation and ensure that they do not upset the national agenda.

You must work with Homeland Security so that we can have a more constructive debate.

Or else you will be another Nehru living in your ideal dream world.

I hope I am not sounding like Carl!

Is there any evidence of government support, or are you simply assuming that all foreign NGOs are government-funded?

My assumption is not material.

Note what I have appended about the USSR.

Is that evidence or mere assumptions?

Internet you say is a purveyor of bogus information.

In short, you are indicating that anything said, but for what you say , is mere figments of imagination based on links from a bogus instrument – Internet.

Sadly, I have not penetrated every organisation in the world to obtain ‘authentic’ information, and even if I did so and stated it here, you would declare it as bogus.

Damned if you do and damned if you don’t!

Of course it has its own agenda. That doesn't make it a tool of the US Government or of "the West". Where I live Amnesty International and similar groups are believed in military circles to be tools of international communism. Same complaints: they complain about government abuses but ignore those of the rebels, etc.

Why bring in the US in everything?

Because this a US forum and it will agitate the members?

Not only the US, we too feel that the Amnesty International is a total fraud!

Governments do actually do that, all over the world, on a regular basis.

That is the cardinal point that Pollyannas and egotists who feel that Life has not recognised their talent, feel.

It reminds me of Shedon of the serial Big Bang Theory, an American sitcom created by Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady.

Sheldon is a great one of being the sole soul who has the answer to everything and others are but idiots!

Has anyone actually been accused of funding insurgency? Who, and to what extent? All I've seen is a claim that Indian NGOs diverted foreign funds to support protests. That's by no means incredible, but it's a far cry from funding insurgency.

I've also expressed curiosity about where Indian insurgent movements get their money, especially if it's true that the fighters are fighting for pecuniary benefit. Claims that the insurgency is directly funded by foreign NGOs or governments, though, have to be supported by some kind of evidence or at least some kind of logic. There's simply no reason for the US or any western government to fund Maoist insurgents in India.

Has anyone accused anyone of funding and giving support infrastructure to Maoists? You possibly live in the back of nowhere.

Even if you don’t subscribe for international newspaper, you can always try them on line (even though you have a poor impression of the Internet).

Again you bring in the US.

Do you think I am that daft to feel that the US is backing the Maoists?

However, you may see this:

http://www.freebinayaksen.org/?p=1112

Binayak Sen has been passing on Maoist literature and is a backer of the Maoists!

Since you are not aware the Maoists are getting their act together with Chinese support.

Self-sustaining insurgencies have existed, especially in their early stages. Foreign funding or ideological support can advance an insurgency, but they can't create one, not unless the domestic conditions exist. Governments would be well advised to address the domestic conditions instead of blaming foreign subversion.

The best example of Insurgency and Popular Revolution is the Chinese Communist Movement.

You may not know but in 1933, Bo Gu and Otto Braun arrived from the USSR, reorganize the Red Army, and take control of Party affairs. They defeat four encirclement campaigns.

1934: October 16, breakout of 130,000 soldiers and civilians led by Bo Gu and Otto Braun, beginning the Long March.

Otto Braun? Funny Chinese name!

You are a pro China person. But you sure need to read more about China!

So people pick up guns and start shooting at vastly superior forces just because some foreigner wants them to? I don't think so, not without some pretty powerful motivation on a local, personal level.

You seem to be influenced by the college shootings in the US expecting it to become revolutions!

Rather simplistic a thought.

I gave you the laundry list that requires organising a movement/ insurgency.

Apparently, it suits you to obfuscate and drive everything to irrelevance.

I thank my stars you have not brought in the US even out here to play to the gallery!

What you're not recognizing is that "Western" encompasses huge variety. There's the "West" of the tea party and the west of the Occupy movements, the west of Exxon and the west of Greenpeace, the west of the IMF and of the anti-globalization protestors and all stripes in between. Governments juggle and dance to try to gain support and deflect opposition from as many parties as possible. Different factions compete aggressively for followers, all over the world, and link with the like-minded all over the world to advance their own agendas.

It's impossible to speak of a unitary "Western" agenda because no such thing exists.

Please check those video - What is the West.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Ray

What is the West?

I don't watch YouTube videos as a general rule, they take too damned long to load. There are a few drawbacks to living on the fringe in the 3rd world, slow internet is one of them. In any event I really don't need to be told what the west is, or that there are many views of the west in both Orient and Occident. I've spent enough years in the Orient to know that there is no single "Oriental view" of the west or of anything else. There are a number of competing views, as there are everywhere.

Originally Posted by Ray

Indeed protests can be with an altruistic drive. However, not all such protests are very noble so to say and can be driven by foreign money.

Of course, though they are more likely to be assisted by foreign money... there's a big difference between "driven" and "assisted".

Originally Posted by Ray

Whether it is true or not, one can always dispute it. Credibility is based on which side of the fence one is.

Credibility is based on the evidence and reasoning provided to support a proposition.

Originally Posted by Ray

I take it that this House Committee on Un-American Activities is not a totally bogus Committee that is asinine in thought and deed!

That Committe is not well remembered, and has a bit of a reputation as a vehicle for witch hunts. It is a source of questionable credibility, to say the least.

Originally Posted by Ray

So, would it be wrong to believe that the NGOs know who are their actual backers?

They certainly know where their money comes from. NGO fundraising is brutally competitive and is one of the main functions of many organization. They keep very close track of their donors and learn all they can about them, mostly because they want to get more money.

Originally Posted by Ray

One could give examples at length, but suffice it to say, that foreign Govts do indulge in using NGOs to promote their agenda, and rarely will it admit that they are funding them or they are using the NGOs. Nor will the NGOs know who actually are their backers.

Perhaps you could cut to the chase and simply state which NGOs you think are supporting Maoist rebellion in India and which governments you think are backing them?

Originally Posted by Ray

In short, in this murky world of geopolitical one-upmanship, to stay relevant and capable of influence peddling, it becomes essential to use every instrument available to maintain supremacy.

Ok, so who's trying to "maintain supremacy" by formenting rebellion in India, and what instruments do you think they are using?

Originally Posted by Ray

I have given adequate examples to include the Raymond Davies case, but then it appears you have missed the same.

I see no relevance to the question at hand. What does Raymond Davis have to do with Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, etc giving money to antinuclear NGOs in India? Yes, intelligence agencies exist and so do covert operations. That doesn't mean anything that happens in the world is the result of a covert operation by an intelligence agency. Where's the evidence? Where's the motive?

Originally Posted by Ray

I precisely mean the DFID supports NGOs. Which NGOs? I am sure you could go on their website and find out for yourself, so that there is no doubt in your mind that may happen if I told you.

I don't doubt that they are funding NGOs. I doubt that they are funding NGOs who in turn fund Maoists or antinuclear demonstrations, not that those are in any way the same.

Originally Posted by Ray

US NGOs maybe monitored by the FBI. But what of it? Are they independent of the Govt? Will they disobey the directions?

Yes to both. Government does not control NGOs and cannot dictate their actions as long as they aren't caught breaking laws. Government wishes it could control NGOs. it can't. That's why they are called non government organizations.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Ray

The unfortunate part is that one has to believe them or else one has to have the finances, organisation, authority and reach to penetrate every action taking place in the world to sift that wheat from the chaff. But then, even that would not be believed by the cynics and the motivate to sell an agenda!

One doesn't have to believe anything. One must be skeptical of everything, and review the evidence, reasoning, and basic common sense behind every proposition one reads. Otherwise one is likely to fall for wacko conspiracy theories.

Originally Posted by Ray

The nuclear plant is not in a Maoist infested area in case you are not aware.

So why is support for anti-nuclear rallies being equated with suipport for Maoists?

This started out as a discussion of where Maoists get their money. Somehow funding for anti-nuclear rallies came into the picture. I'm not sure how that happened, and I'm not sure what the connection is between anti-nuclear rallies and Maoists.

Originally Posted by Ray

Would you not drag in the US when none have mentioned it so.

The articles you cited refer to "US NGOs" and accuse them of trying to advance a "Western agenda". The term "Western" is so often used as a proxy for "US" that I may have confused something.

Again, this would be simpler if you would tell us which NGOs are suspected of aiding Maoist rebellion, and which Governments you think are supporting them.

Originally Posted by Ray

Internet you say is a purveyor of bogus information.

In short, you are indicating that anything said, but for what you say , is mere figments of imagination based on links from a bogus instrument – Internet.

The internet is not a purveyor of anything. It is a vehicle for multiple purveyors. Since anyone can publish anything, everything there must be taken with skepticism. A proposition not supported by convincing evidence and effective reasoning is bogus no matter where you read it. You're just most likely, these days, to read such propositions on the internet because of the ease of publication.

Originally Posted by Ray

Sadly, I have not penetrated every organisation in the world to obtain ‘authentic’ information, and even if I did so and stated it here, you would declare it as bogus.

Only in the absence of convincing evidence and effective reasoning.

Originally Posted by Ray

Not only the US, we too feel that the Amnesty International is a total fraud!

When I say "here" I don't mean the US. Either way, while AI certainly has an agenda, that doesn't mean they are agents of some nefarious conspiracy. it just means they have an agenda. Most organizations do.

Originally Posted by Ray

Has anyone accused anyone of funding and giving support infrastructure to Maoists? You possibly live in the back of nowhere.

This whole conversation started with the question of who is funding the Maoists. NGOs and foreign governments were cited. I'm still trying to find out which ones. When did any other topic come into the picture?

Originally Posted by Ray

Since you are not aware the Maoists are getting their act together with Chinese support.

Finally, progress! What form is this support taking, and in what quantity is it arriving?

Is there a proposition being made that the Chinese are using western NGOs to support Maoists in India? I ask because it's really not clear. If so, what NGOs?

Originally Posted by Ray

The best example of Insurgency and Popular Revolution is the Chinese Communist Movement.

You may not know but in 1933, Bo Gu and Otto Braun arrived from the USSR, reorganize the Red Army, and take control of Party affairs. They defeat four encirclement campaigns.

There were a few others involved... Mao, Chu Teh, etc.

Originally Posted by Ray

1934: October 16, breakout of 130,000 soldiers and civilians led by Bo Gu and Otto Braun, beginning the Long March.

Otto Braun? Funny Chinese name!

You are a pro China person. But you sure need to read more about China!

Does failure to indulge in hysterical Sinophobia make one a "pro-China person"? These definitions seem to change all the time...

Certainly Chiang Kai-Shek wanted to believe that all his problems were due to foreign subversion, and wanted even more to get the Americans to believe it. His allies in the US tried hard to advance that theory. In the end, though, it doesn't hold up: Chiang's problem wasn't foreigners, it was his own incompetence and inability to govern. That's not to say no foreigners were involved; there were a number of foreigners there. The point is that while the revolution may have received foreign assistance, it was in no way a foreign creation. Of course other powers will try to manipulate a revolution to advance their own interests. That doesn't mean they created the revolution or that the revolution couldn't exist without them.

Again, blaming foreigners for revolution is the first choice of the government that doesn't want to admit to its own role in producing revolution.

Originally Posted by Ray

You seem to be influenced by the college shootings in the US expecting it to become revolutions!

The point was that a foreign power can not simply wave a wand and conjure up insurgency where the preconditions to insurgency - factors within the power of government to address - are not present. Governments need to spend less energy wailing about foreign subversion and more energy resolving those preconditions. Find and resolve the grievances and foreign subversion is a seed cast upon stone.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Ray

In 1982 the Heritage Foundation published Moscow and the Peace Offensive, which said that non-aligned peace organizations advocated similar policies on defence and disarmament to the Soviet Union. It argued that "pacifists and concerned Christians had been drawn into the Communist campaign largely unaware if its real sponsorship."

At that time it was fashionable in certain circles (Heritage also has an agenda) to accuse virtually anyone who disagreed with Government of being an unwilling tool of the Commie conspiracy. That label was applied to peace activists, antinuclear activists, civil rights activists, environmental activists, people who smoked dope, listened to loud music, and had long hair, to all kinds of folks who didn't quite fit the mold.

Ironically this view seemed to be shared inside the Communist movement: Soviet leaders routinely gloated that decadence and internal dissent would do their job for them and bring the West down.

What neither realized is that protest and divergence, and the ability to accommodate protest and divergence, did not make the west weaker, they made it stronger. The ability to generate diverse views, to accommodate protest and synthesize those views, is precisely what makes democracy strong, no matter how chaotic it seems.

How to respond top protest and criticism is one of the hardest lessons for a politician, and by extension a democracy, to learn. The stupid politician rejects protest, accuses it of conspiring with foreigners, suppresses it, demonizes it, calls out the constabulary to throw teargas and break heads.

The smart politician embraces protest. When angry people wave signs and shout slogans the smart politician goes to them, invites their leaders to dialogue, takes questions from the crowd, treats them with utmost politeness and expect no matter how hostile they are. By doing this you diffuse the crowd's energy and deprive them of motivation.

[Ray]

I don't watch YouTube videos as a general rule, they take too damned long to load. There are a few drawbacks to living on the fringe in the 3rd world, slow internet is one of them. In any event I really don't need to be told what the west is, or that there are many views of the west in both Orient and Occident. I've spent enough years in the Orient to know that there is no single "Oriental view" of the west or of anything else. There are a number of competing views, as there are everywhere.

It is obvious patience is not your cup of tea. Of course, internet is slow in many countries. As skewed as your argument - Traffic is very slow and chaotic in Tokyo - I take it is therefore a third world country by your logic.

There is a drawback in living in all countries. Fast paced life kills in countries which makes every issue, an issue of time and life or death!

Of course one does not have to tell you anything on anything, since you obviously know better than the world!

If renowned Professors of US and UK ivy league Colleges know less than you, then your continuing to being in the back of nowhere, is indeed a loss to humanity and the world of knowledge!

Do forgive me, but your lack of giving the due to others does sort of make one wonder what’s the hangup all about? As per you, the Internet is bogus, the media knows nothing, Professors just blabber, Govts around the world are staffed by fools and the world leaders are total scoundrel. What is OK - that is, beyond the entity - you?!Why is such negativism consuming you? I presume the sun must have got you, like it got the colonial British in the Orient!

Of course, though they are more likely to be assisted by foreign money... there's a big difference between "driven" and "assisted".

I would not know the difference since you alone know it, but this much I know (and I am not an American) that there is an Americanism – There is nothing called a Free Lunch! The more I see the ‘big bad world’, the more I realise the worth of this saying!

Credibility is based on the evidence and reasoning provided to support a proposition.

And Evidence can be manufactured to suit the flavour of the moment. I am sure you have heard about the WMDs of Iraq, the coup in Chile, how China was an evil Kingdom (and now the apple of the eye - that should strike a chord in your heart!) etc etc.

That Committe is not well remembered, and has a bit of a reputation as a vehicle for witch hunts. It is a source of questionable credibility, to say the least.

Very convenient!

Unpalatable truth brushed under the carpet!

Throughout the threads it is observed that whatever does not suit you, becomesa issues of questionable credibility.

Interesting ground-rules for debate with such a mindset.

They certainly know where their money comes from. NGO fundraising is brutally competitive and is one of the main functions of many organization. They keep very close track of their donors and learn all they can about them, mostly because they want to get more money.

Good that this was not a case of questionable credibility.

Perhaps you could cut to the chase and simply state which NGOs you think are supporting Maoist rebellion in India and which governments you think are backing them?

There is no chase at all.

Enough examples have been given of how the NGOs operate to serve the agenda of their Govt. But, you seem to be living in your own world!

I have already given you the Govt of India’s assertion as to who are organising the support to Maoist, but then you don’t wish to take note of things that does not suit your personal preserve!

You tend to obfuscate by brining in the US into everything just to go tangential and even irrelevant to the discussion - the aim being to deflect so continuously that the thought does into oblivion and beyond your being embarrassed!

And it is no rocket science that no Govt will announce that they are funding directly or indirectly organisations to serve its national policy, especially the policies that are not above board!

Ok, so who's trying to "maintain supremacy" by formenting rebellion in India, and what instruments do you think they are using?

Supremacy is not over a small patch of land. It is over a sphere and the envelope that is so spread is called ‘sphere of influence’. It is achieved by many instruments and this thread is not the place for me to amplify on geostrategy or geopolitics and how it is achieved.

You either know it or you don’t know it.

And if you don’t know it, the loss is yours and amplifying for you would be futile.

I see no relevance to the question at hand. What does Raymond Davis have to do with Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, etc giving money to antinuclear NGOs in India? Yes, intelligence agencies exist and so do covert operations. That doesn't mean anything that happens in the world is the result of a covert operation by an intelligence agency. Where's the evidence? Where's the motive?

As usual you are at what you are best at – obfuscate, deflect, divert. The ABCD of your style of debateing - Avoid, Bypass, Confuse, Deflect!

The Chinese (Red) are also good at the same or so is the perception in some quarters.

I don't doubt that they are funding NGOs. I doubt that they are funding NGOs who in turn fund Maoists or antinuclear demonstrations, not that those are in any way the same.

It is so obvious that you are so in yourself that you don’t even read the links!

I presume, you will now say that the servers are so slow in the third world countries and so you give them the go by. You always have such ingenuous answers!

Yes to both. Government does not control NGOs and cannot dictate their actions as long as they aren't caught breaking laws. Government wishes it could control NGOs. it can't. That's why they are called non government organizations.

Not caught breaking laws.

That is rich!

So why is support for anti-nuclear rallies being equated with suipport for Maoists?

This started out as a discussion of where Maoists get their money. Somehow funding for anti-nuclear rallies came into the picture. I'm not sure how that happened, and I'm not sure what the connection is between anti-nuclear rallies and Maoists.

ABCD, right?

You must read what is happening around the world and not be so much in yourself. Unless you do so, you will find that you confuse yourself and in your confusion confuse the other as to to what is going on or what is being said by you!

The world should not be your own crystal ball that is confined to the understanding within your grasp of events and is the sole Holy Cow around which the Cosmos MUST revolve!

Matthew 7:7 - seek and ye shall Find!

[Ray]

Ref above post.

that the thought does into oblivion and beyond your being embarrassed!

For does, read, goes

Don't mix up issues of foreign funded NGOs to mean US funded NGOs, even if suits your desire to deflect the issues.

Note, as far as I am concerned, US is not the Great White Satan or the one which is anti China!

US is merely pursuing her national ambitions and policies to further its aims, as is every other country in the world!

It is just that the US has the clout to enforce it, while others may not be able to match up!

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Ray

It is obvious patience is not your cup of tea. Of course, internet is slow in many countries.

One does not survive in Asia without patience.

Video news and analysis is not my cup of tea, especially when it takes forever and crams bandwith, though I also don't watch TV news. I'd rather read, I find it much more conducive to thought and analysis. You can read at your own pace, thinking as you do... patiently, if you will. Video doesn't allow that luxury, and images and their editing are tools for manipulation. Plus if you want to discuss a reference in print, you can clip it, quote it (with attribution), and talk about it. Can't do that with video. All in all, written references are much easier to access and much more conducive to discussion.

Originally Posted by Ray

And Evidence can be manufactured to suit the flavour of the moment. I am sure you have heard about the WMDs of Iraq, the coup in Chile, how China was an evil Kingdom (and now the apple of the eye - that should strike a chord in your heart!) etc etc.

That's why the "evidence" anyone presents must be carefully and skeptically weighed, and constantly re-evaluated as new information becomes available. I was personally never convinced by the rhetoric on any of the issues you mention. Some people have been.

This gets confusing. You say this:

Enough examples have been given of how the NGOs operate to serve the agenda of their Govt. But, you seem to be living in your own world!

and you say this:

Don't mix up issues of foreign funded NGOs to mean US funded NGOs, even if suits your desire to deflect the issues.

and the articles you reference specifically refer to "US NGOs".

So when you say "their" NGOs, who's "they"? That certainly sounds as though US NGOs are supposedly the NGOs of the US government. If not, then whose NGOs are they? Must an NGO be the property of some government? Please clarify.

I have no doubt that US-based international NGOs are funneling money to the Indian antinuclear movement. I do have some doubts about them funneling money to Maoist rebels, a quite different thing: they would run the risk of getting caught, which would be very destructive to their organizations. The idea that these NGOs are working on behalf of some government (which one?) is unsupported by evidence and seems pretty far off the table.

I do not believe for a minute that the Chinese government (since China has been mentioned from time to time) is supporting US antinuclear and environmental NGOs, which are also vehement opponents of Chinese projects in China and around the world. The Chinese hate Greenpeace and Amnesty International more than the Indians do. The Philippine or Indian governments might see the environmental and human rights movements as a tool of international communism being used to undermine them, the Chinese think it's a tool of corporate capitalism being used to undermine them. An odd dichotomy, and one that makes me to some small extent sympathetic to the movements, on the (admittedly generic) basis that anyone getting that much hate from both ends of the ideological spectrum must be doing something right.

Originally Posted by Ray

I have already given you the Govt of India’s assertion as to who are organising the support to Maoist, but then you don’t wish to take note of things that does not suit your personal preserve!

No, you haven't, not in any detail. There's been discussion of NGOs funding antinuclear demonstrations (not Maoist rebels) and a few mentions of China. Nothing more.

Originally Posted by Ray

You tend to obfuscate by brining in the US into everything just to go tangential and even irrelevant to the discussion

It wasn't me who referenced articles blaming "US NGOs" and "Western Interests".

Originally Posted by Ray

As usual you are at what you are best at – obfuscate, deflect, divert. The ABCD of your style of debateing - Avoid, Bypass, Confuse, Deflect!

Au contraire. I asked a simple question, and have tried to stay with the point. I wanted to know was who you think is funding Maoist rebels in India, and how, and to what extent. You managed to introduce antinuclear demonstrations, the HUAC, Raymond Davis, and any number of other issues that, while interesting in themselves, have no connection whatsoever to the financing of Maoist rebels in India. That sounds to me like ABCD, as you put it.

So perhaps just focus on the following:

Who do you think is funding the Maoist rebels in India? If NGOs, which ones? If governments, which ones? If NGOs working on behalf of governments, which NGOs working on behalf of which governments?

All I asked for was an opinion, though of course references and evidence related to the question are always useful.

Originally Posted by Ray

Not caught breaking laws.

That is rich!

NGOs have to be very careful about breaking laws, especially NGOs that have uncomfortable, even adversarial relationships with government. The US Government would love to catch many of the cause-oriented NGOs breaking the law and have an excuse to move in on them. I'm sure many other governments feel the same way. The general consensus among governments - very much including China's - is that these organizations are a royal pain in the ass.

NGOs also have to be very careful about who they fund. The leaders of many of the more radical NGOs would be perfectly happy to fund violent organizations, but they have huge numbers of donors who earnestly believe that their money is saving cute cuddly baby animals from vicious corporations. If the organization gets caught out sending money to fund violence... end of money stream, end of party. Even the most radical NGO leaders value their paychecks and know whence they come.

Originally Posted by Ray

You must read what is happening around the world and not be so much in yourself. Unless you do so, you will find that you confuse yourself and in your confusion confuse the other as to to what is going on or what is being said by you!

I read a great deal about what is happening in the world. I don't believe everything I read. Even when you try to avoid the nonsense you see a great deal of it.

[Ray]

As usual, Thus Spake Sir Oracle!

[Dayuhan]

Returning to the point after extended digression...

Who do you think is funding the Maoist rebels in India, and to what extent? If NGOs, which ones? If governments, which ones? If NGOs working on behalf of governments, which NGOs working on behalf of which governments?

All I asked for was an opinion, though of course references and evidence related to the question are always useful.

[Ray]

It is all said in the links.

Seek and ye shall find!

[Dayuhan]

What I'm asking for is your opinion... why would I look to a link to get that?

Besides, there's nothing at all in those links about financing for Maoists. You posted links to an article about DFID funding to NGOs, about allegations that Indian NGOs are diverting foreign funding to antinuclear demonstrations, and to videos about perceptions of the West. What does any of that have to do with funding for Maoist rebels?

It doesn't sound a difficult or complicated question to me:

Who do you think is funding the Maoist rebels in India, and to what extent? If NGOs, which ones? If governments, which ones? If NGOs working on behalf of governments, which NGOs working on behalf of which governments?

[Ray]

I have already given what I think.

The final mystery is oneself.

Trust yourself. You know more than you think you do.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Ray

I have already given what I think.

Looking back over recent posts, I don't think you have, not in any specific sense.

This one did stand out though:

Originally Posted by Ray

This spreading of “awareness”, “promotion”, and “advocacy” by foreign funded NGOs is what fuels the fire and leads to insurgencies and Maoism.

That seems a bit curious, honestly. How does exercise of the normal rights to freedom of speech, freedom to organize, not to mention the fundamental right to peacefully resist government or to seek redress for grievance lead to insurgency and Maoism? And if it's ok for the government to seek foreign help to build a nuclear plant, how is it not ok for opponents to seek foreign help to oppose it?

Does resisting a nuclear power plant, or urging others to resist, make you a Maoist? How about objecting to being thrown off your land to make way for a factory, a dam, or a mine? Are people who object to being beaten by the police Maoists?

I'd be curious about your impression of this report, which suggests that the Maoists also see NGO workers as a threat:

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/30/i...iety-activists